honour to the fallen on the Tsarist side. they fought bravely for what they believed. regardless of whether or not i agree with them i can respect their will.
So here I am sitting in the U.S. which for all intents and purposes, appears to be quite similar to Russia just before the communist uprising and so it seems many days, with our current leaders, that the U.S. will go the same way down the same slippery slope of lies. I have never heard of the White Army. Where do I go to find published material about them? And why is this site deemed by the Youtube Community as possibly offensive?
hey man, it really doesn't matter, because if you've got two brain cells to rub together you can see that they mean White-Tsarist Army, and thusly just skip the content warning.
@ThirdReichHistorian In English, the song is "God Save the Tsar." Remember your history - we may face the same fate if we don't drive the socialists out NOW.
If I lived in that time I would have sided with the white army. But then there is the chance that they manipulated me into chosing the Red army's side... Yea Im glad I live in this age so I can see through the past more clearly.
Whatever the Czar and the whites did, it was so much less than Lenin and Stalin, Yagoda and Beria and the rest of the filth that butchered Europe. If only the Whites had been victorious, where might the world be?
Poor white soldiers, sent by their explotators to kill their own brothers. I'm glad they lost the war against the proletarians and the revolution. Nowadays reactionary russians are most of them fascists. Russian heart is and always will be red.
@Martinenkovy: You are insane. The Bolsheviks were nothing but a small gang of criminals who took money from Russia's enemies in German to sabotage their own gov't. Communists are Quislings. They are all Quislings & will always be Quislings.
You side with the damn red army! The same damn army who enslaved countless of your own kinsmen as slaves to keep themselves occupied off the fruits of the land like snob warlords with vermin grunts?!
The Russians only gave into hunger, and payed a price of more hunger and chains. Countless lives could have been saved if the russians never gave into a slaver's little red book.
There is a sad historical possibility of the White Army having another 500,000 soldiers made up of Poles and Finns. If the Russians had announced that all occupied territory would be freed that most likely could have happened. As it was the Poles fought the Red Army in 1920 on their own and beat them. So many "what if's" in history.
Better DEAD than Red. Anyone who wanted to help Lenin loot fellow human beings was a coward.
My heroes of that area are Wrangel and Kolchak. They were though talented guys who did their best to stop these monsters who wanted to destroy everything what human dignity meant.
But one must also remember that many of the Red Army were cowards. They had to chose who they served. They chose Lenin and Trotsky. Lenin a traitor. Bronstein a ukrainian jew. Some commanders in chief. Same like Bush.
Not to mention important questions such as land redistribution had to be answered first. The tsars understood this and is why they decided to not rush the process. Begining with Paul I, Russian serfs were liberated little by little. So by the time serfdom was abolished, serfs were a minority of the population.This allowed for a smooth transition and allowed for the major questions to be decided.
I'm a Russian Baptist. Nobody knows, why it's really happened. But Bible say: that spiritual man understandeth everything. So let me tell you Great Russia has fallen to satanic hordes of reds, because of deep failure of Orthodox Church. They started persecuted Russian Evangelicals for no reason through Pobedonostsev guy. Russian people were leaving orthodox Church in droves, because of spiritual hunger and lack of life in Christ. They wanted Ap. Andrew- type of faith. God punished Russia after.
@michaelbyrnes2012 Even more absurd is what you're trying to imply here: only because a guy's rich, he can't support communist. Communism is a fucking good principle dude, don't ever try to demonize it. Communism, education and intelectual progress is everything societies should aim for dude.
@michaelbyrnes2012 I mean this is just too much of a conspiracy theory for anyone to believe in. It's also unpolite to call people by their given name without being asked to do so, even if it's over the internet.
@michaelbyrnes2012 Because I hate to see a perfectly acceptable principle, like the creation of better opportunities for poor people becoming a pretext for this political circus in which people insult my intelligence trying to convince me of things like the "Jewish bankers wanted to control Russia that's why they've finnanced the Revolution, communism is just a set of lies fabricated to further oppress the people."
@michaelbyrnes2012 What difference does it make where the money comes from? Didn't they make the revolution, didn't everyone live happily ever after? I don't see where you are trying to get. If Trotsky needed money for the revolution he would get it from whoever would it give it to him, right? The main source of hatred at the time wasn't even capitalism itself, it was more directed towards the czar and his political friends. Were you just trying to further discredit the revolution and communism?
@pedroissler Lived happily ever after ? Sorry to burst your bubble but that has nothing to do with reality. Perhaps you've never heard of the red terror ? Or the prision camps in Siberia ? Or how priests were tortured and killed ? In other words it was no picnic in the workers paradise. And anyone who glorifies it can only be described as delusional and naive. Communism is another degenerate product of the French revolution.
@ImperialRussianGuard Look man.. if a guy uses the name of Jesus Christ, for example, to justify the murder of someone it doesn't make him innocent and doesn't make Jesus Christ more guilty. The same applies to communism and every other intellectual theory despots have used over the centuries to commit atrocities.
@pedroissler Even Communism as a theory is repulsive. Just look at its founders, Marx and Engels. Are you aware that Engels called for the anaihilation of the Russian people. Or that Marx thought of Slavs as inferior. Both of them were deranged men, who wanted to murder people simply because of their class.
@ImperialRussianGuard Yeah, to educate the people so they will improve their own lives. Hmph, what a crazed loonie am I. Tell me what you've been smoking because I want some.
@pedroissler Yes, you show clear signs of insanity. I am glad that at the very least you admit your own mental instabilities. Especially since you are arguing that they best way to educate people is to kill innocent people. I'm afraid I cannot give you good advice on your narcotic cravings, since clearly your knowledge of narcotics clearly exceed mine. After all one could only spout such nonsense with the assistance of narcotics.
@pedroissler Yes, the French revolution was one of the most barbaric things in the history of humanity. I can't understand why anyone would support it.
@ImperialRussianGuard Omg. The most barbaric thing IMHO would be a country having it's queen say to her own people that awful phrase. That phrase summed it all up, became a slogan, that pretty much justified the whole thing to me.. You know, I would be extremely disgruntled too, would someone ever treat me that way.
Are you reffering to the claim that Marie-Antoinette said " let them eat cake".You do realize that has been exposed as urban legend? She never said such a thing. In fact such a statement would be contradictory to her personality. Both she and Louis XVI had a genuine want to improve the lifes of their poor subjects. Marie-Antoinette often invited children from poor families to play with her own. She was Patroness of the Maison Philanthropique,a society which helped the aged, the blind, and widows
@pedroissler Humans by nature are unequal. We strive to achieve excellence, thus we wish to place ourselves above others. A an artist does not wish to be considered equal to other artists. He wishes to be praised and to be considered superior than other artists. That is why artists such as Leonardo da Vinci have achieved imortality, while some of their less counterparts have become forgotten. One can only achieve equality with the abolition of merit and virtue.
@ImperialRussianGuard The whole problem are private schools. The whole system works I mean, I have studied all my life at private schools but the whole problem is when people start thinking they are the most exclusive thing that's ever been, for some cosmic reason. I tend to judge people based solely on merit like you said, but I have friends that clearly abuse of their social position for personal gain, and that's not nice for a country dude.
@ImperialRussianGuard About Da Vinci well, he had all the reasons to feel different, but that's probably because he really was. Forcible wealth distribution kills innovation but so does the other end of the spectrum. No one wants to live in some sort of 21st century feudalism where there is little or no state presence and the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Societies should aim for education and social mobility more than they do for their momentaneous output.
@ImperialRussianGuard Societies, in general, should think more about the long run. The first question people with real social power ask typically ask is "How can I benefit from this?". Instead, they should ask themselves "How will this benefit society in the long run".
Because in benefiting society, in the long run people will benefit more than if they only thought about how they could get richer or attain more prestige and power.
@pedroissler Perhaps the only leaders who ask the question "How will this benefit society in the long run ?" are monarchs. Only monarchs are willing to take unpopular steps for the good of the nation. As Tsar Paul I once said " I prefer to be hated for a rightful cause than loved for a wrong one." Paul I practiced what he preached. He was the first Tsar to began improving the life for Serfs. He also fought against corruption and lawlessness in the government. He made many enemies and was killed.
@pedroissler@pedroissler Is is it really that difficult to write "enough" ? I don't see how the fact that he was the Tsar of Russia somehow debunks anything. Enlighten me with your infinite wisdom.
@pedroissler While I have sympathy for your unfortunate medical condition, you have yet to debunk my point. Since you claim that I am wrong about Paul I, then show me where I am wrong.
@ImperialRussianGuard You see. It's not that he was wrong, or any other tsar then, that the people didn't like him (and I'm not even sure about Paul I, but about Nicholas the 2nd I am).
The reason why monarchy has been despised in many parts of the world is because it is, a tyrannical form of rule.
You see, I'm not trying to say that monarchy is naturally a poor form of government. There were largely successful ones. The problem is when times get tough and they, the people, demand new leaders
@pedroissler Actually most of the Russian tsars were very popular, including Nicholas II. For example at a public celebration in honor of the 200th anniversary of the Battle of Poltova, many observers noted the great enthusiasm that the crowds greeted the tsar with. A monarchy cannot be a tyranny be definition. The Greek tyrannos is one who seizes power through illegal means. In Ancient Greece, tyrants rose to power through populist coups against the local aristocracy.
@ImperialRussianGuard It's not that monarchs are essentially bad rulers you see, but, if ever they allowed political opposition to gain strength they would risk losing it all when times got tougher and the people demanded for change. Not so much because they are unfit to rule but, because of the opposition's own tend to wish and remain in power after the crisis' solved. They wouldn't be allowed to return, the blame would fall on them, as it has happened throughout history.
@pedroissler While we could dwell on the fact that in fact monarchs did allow political opposition, I find the claim that monarchs are incapable of making changes. This simply not true. In fact I would argue monachs are able to cause political changes more effectivley and smoothly due to the long term thinking present in monarchies. The emancipation of serfs in Russias is a great example. If the serfs had been emancipated right away, the Russian economy would have collapsed.
@ImperialRussianGuard So why is it that developed countries are democracies, not monarchies? Why is it that GB has a prime minister, as does Spain? Certainly not because their monarchs were all the more capable.
@pedroissler I apologize that I did not respond earlier. For some reason I could access this video for a considerable amount of time. However now to answer your question.
@pedroissler I would contest this concept of a "developed" nation. However that is for a different discussion. The reason why most of the leading nations are democracies is because due the political crisis generated by the first and second world war, many of the leading European monarchies such as Austria, Germany, Russia,etc were destroyed. However if we are to look at statistics prior to WW1, we will see that monarchies were ahead of democracies in many fields.
For example: Between 1898 and 1913 the three fastest growing economies were Russia, Austria-Hungary, and Germany in that order. It is interesting to note that Austria-Hungary beat larger colonial empires such as France and Britain even though they did not even have a third of their resources. And this pattern was not only in Europe. In South America, the Brazilian empire was far more prosperous than it it's democratic neighbors.
@ImperialRussianGuard The brazillian empire wasn't exactly what you can call prosperous, and I'm saying this because I live in Brazil. Our monarch used to hinder growth applying large taxes, every business here had to pass a kind of imperial council to get approved, and it would require connections and favours for the king's circle. A nice movie is "MAUÁ, The Emperor and The King", it shows the life of a brazillian businessmen who had his assets seized because he got too rich building railroads
@ImperialRussianGuard Also the central powers led themselves into war, the entente hadn't much of a choice. Bismarck himself predicted that imperial ambitions in europe would end up leading to an all-out european war, in his famous remark: "One day the great European War will come out of some damned foolish thing in the Balkans." He said it weeks before leaving his post as chancellor. The problem is the napoleonic dream monarchs feed, that they will be their country's saviour/redeemer, plain BS.
Monarchies over the centuries failed because while they were undoubtly able to gather support, specially with the army and businessmen they usually benefited, democracies could still raise armies just as good (see the US army for more info), allow for better economic development because they weren't economically exclusive, to sum it up, were able to gather much more political support. That's why every monarchy fell in Europe, because after a certain point they would simply stop working.
@pedroissler Nonsense ! The Napoleonic wars are a testament of this claims falsity. The Tyrolean rebellion is a good example. The peasants of Tyrol revolted against Bonaparte and his hordes under the slogan "For God, Emperor and Fatherland" ! In Spain, monarchist partisans fought like lions against the French occupiers ! What about the Russian peasants who mercilessly harassed the retreating French army. What about the martyrs of Vendee ?
@ImperialRussianGuard I never said monarchs were utter imbeciles, but that democracies have delivered better over the 20th century.. Bhutan has a king, look at how Bhutan is today..
@pedroissler For a small country Bhutan has some very impressive accomplishments. In 2007 they were the second fastest growing economy in the world. Their annual growth rate is about 22.5%. They have a unemployment rate of less than 4 %. For a small country with limited natural resources their economic development can only be admired. Besides they are the only country in the world that measure the Gross National Happiness. I wouldn't mind living in Bhutan.
@ImperialRussianGuard Now you really want to know why every russian government has been failing since the crimean war on a regular basis? It is because Russia is one hell of a corrupt country. Education in Russia is great, the Russian army is great, Russia has a lot of natural resources, but you have bloody power hungry leaders who don't give a shoot about the fate of their own people too concerned about war and sputnik. A little less elitism and nationalistic pride couldn't possibly harm...
@pedroissler Actually up until 1917, Russia didn't have a problem with it's leaders. It was when the monarchy was abolished that all of it's problems began. It was only with the introduction of democracy to Russia, that corruption became rampant on such a large scale. Even in the Soviet Union it was not as much of a problem as it was during the Yeltsin years. Under a tsar like Paul I, this would be inconceivable. What is wrong with elitism and patriotism ? They are both very noble ideals.
@ImperialRussianGuard Dude the tsar would prefer to use a scorched earth policy and burn half of the russian countryside to hold-off Napoleon than handle over the power. Napoleon found Moscow in flames as he sate in the Kremlin.. talk about corruption.. That's the elitism I'm talking about, the elites governing for themselves and not for the common folk.. Patriotism is a whole different story..
@pedroissler Actually the tsar did not order for Moscow to be burned. It was Count Rostopchin who gave the orders under pressure from the people of Moscow who refused to be under French control. After all Bonaparte's army was not known for it's chivalry. Had Moscow not been burned down, it is very likely that the Muscovites would have suffered a fate similar to that of many unfortunate Spaniards. But what does this have to do with elitism and corruption ?
@ImperialRussianGuard and if monarchy is so good why aren't the people in Egypt Lyibia Syria Tunis uprising to have their monarchs back instead of wanting democracy
why don't the spanish and british people claim for absolutist power?
why hasn't the united states burned its constitution and adopted monarchy?
the best thing with democracy is that you can neatly replace your leader if he doesn't work
with monarchies you have to guillotine the dude because he just won't go
@pedroissler I will not dwell on the growing monarchist sentiments in those countries, rather I would point out that these people are not advocating western style democracy. In Egypt, Islamist groups have the most political support. While the Libyan rebels are completely divided by tribal and political factions. The Arab spring, over which journalists have been gushing about for the past few months, are not going to make way for western style democracy. It probably be closer to Palestinian style
@ImperialRussianGuard As for saying that children are brainwashed in school to support democracy and oppose monarchy that's completely right and takes some legitimacy away from the democratic cause, as people should always be made to see history from more than one perspective, even if it means letting go of their certainties. Now even though brainwashing isn't the best way to teach our children, it doesn't at all mean that because of that democracy has more or less legitimacy... That's a fallacy
@pedroissler You argued that the fact that people are not advocating for absolute monarchy is evidence that it is inferior. This is of course logically flawed because you are essentially saying that something can be determined as good or bad by its popularity . Using that logic one could argue that is justifiable to kill people in blue sweaters if blue sweaters are unpopular. So I pointed out their disdain for monarchy is not rooted in intellectual reasons, but rather childhood brainwashing.
@ImperialRussianGuard I'm not saying that because something is popular it is necessarily right, and there's a big difference there and you pointed out right, but the democratic process involves allowing countries to make their own mistakes and figure it out for themselves, you see? Autodetermination it is called. If you wanted a country to succeed, you could just make everyone work 17 hours a day nonstop and push the children really hard in school, it would work out, certainly would
@pedroissler It is simply irrational to make large scale decisions based on the will of the majority. One must remember that a majority of people have a very limited knowledge of political matters. How can you expect a group of people who know nothing about foreign policy to be able decide on a successful foreign policy ? They can't, all it does is it continues to make a bigger and bigger mess of the countries political situation.
@ImperialRussianGuard In western democracies the majority chooses their leaders, what their leaders will do is a whole different matter.. The world is deeply elitist, even if we won't like to admit it, and there will always be individuals who will stand out, even in socialism. People were born equal, but it was the last time that they were so, you never heard this? The good thing about democracy isn't the choice per se, but political renewal that just won't happen otherwise.
@pedroissler Without a strong elite, a state cannot survive. Never in the history has there been a successful state governed by the principles of egalitarianism. It is interesting to note that all the successful democracies in history were limited ones with a strong aristocratic and merchant class elite. The Republic of Venice is an excellent example. That is why democracy will remain but an ideal. Can you give me an example of one successful state that did not have some form of elite ?
But the catch is: do these people want to work 17 hours a day nonstop, do these people really want all this? We hope so, but they'll have to choose. The good thing about democracy is that one can choose. You can choose to work hard or not, you can choose to have your opinions OR NOT (you can choose to have no opinions), you can choose to have children or not, to serve the army or not, hell you can choose whether you will vote or not, to have a tv or not, to work or not. But hell, you can choose.
Freedom of choice in democracy is completely based on the will of the majority. If 51% of the population want to, they can impose their will on the other 49%. So if the majority wish to restrict the freedom of choice of the minority, in a democracy they can do that. For example in the Netherlands and many other Western democracies you are not allowed to read certain unpopular political literature. The majority of the population is restricting the freedom of others to read certain literature.
@ImperialRussianGuard Dude it doesn't work like that, if 51% of the US would want to detonate all the bombs and start once and for all MAD it wouldn't happen. Democracies rely on checks and balances, sophisticated political mechanisms that will correct these flaws. The other neat thing is that 51% of the US population simply wouldn't choose out of the blue to start MAD, while in a monarchy if you caught your king in a bad mood he might as well press that red button and end of story lol
@pedroissler Only when democracy is limited, there can be some form of checks and balances. Democracy in it's purist form has no checks or balances but is full out mob absolutism. Even in a limited democracy it is very difficult to preserve law and order. If the the majority of the citizens wanted a nuclear war, then even in a limited democracy they could accomplish that. They would elect representatives that promised to start it, and once the congress and senate pass it, the bombs start falling
@pedroissler You have obviously never read about a monarchs education. For example Russian tsars were frequently verbally abused by their teachers if their grades slipped or if they misbehaved. They were even sometimes beaten for bad behavior. They were forced to sleep on hard beds in cold and uncomfortable conditions. They were given food that only the poorest would eat. So your argument that monarchs are somehow sheltered from harsh reality doesn't stand up the historical reality of things.
@ImperialRussianGuard monarchies aren't anything like you said dude, they're just plain tyrannies in the end, which agrees to the universally accepted truth that we shouldn't even think about NOT BRAINWASHING our kids to believe this, it's simply true in the end and thus not brainwashing
that monarchies suck and that 2+2=4 teachers shouldn't really bother to prove
dumb and lazy kids will fail, be them monarchs or not, and i'm not giving my seat to any arrogant monarch
If it is supposedly so obvious that democracy is superior to monarchy, then why did most of the great thinkers of history think other wise? Why did prominent psychologists such as Gustav Le Bon prefer monarchy to democracy ? Why did great philosophers like Plato and Thomas Hobbes mock democracy yet revere monarchy ? Why did prolific writers such as Feodor Dosteyevsky and Anatole France think so highly of monarchy but have a very low opinion of democracy ?
@ImperialRussianGuard The major reason for the low opinion of Democracy is that Democracies are very suceptible to being taken over by the greedy, lazy mob of people who want something for nothing.
@ImperialRussianGuard Monarchy is a system that can be great for having a leaders, but it becomes unstable with corruption if a bad seed takes control.
Many great thinkers may have had low opinion of elections and mob choice since many people were forced to believe in rulers and had high opinions of kings when they won wars and brought back glory for their nation.
Everything is flawed in it's own way, but monarchy is a legit system if bad apples were kept in check.
Alas monarchy does not work in the same way as democracy. Monarchs are taught from childhood to have a good self control and to analyze decisions logically. A monarchy is taught from childhood that it is a bad idea to make political decisions based of emotional sensations. So even if he was in a "bad mood" he would be able to restrain himself from making unwise decisions based on his mood. A monarch is not only taught the skills necessary to rule but also he is prepared psychologically.
@ImperialRussianGuard To sum it all up, capitalism and democracy are the worst systems in the world, except for all others. In the end, they're all we have. Life is so much different from the theory, so many democracies that will turn into tyrannies, even many tyrannies that resemble democracies. The catch is that you have to be aware of everything all the time, because sometimes what is promised isn't what is delivered, indeed, most of the time.
To answer your second point. There are two reasons. The first being is that government funded schools are required to promote democracy in the classroom. Children are conditioned to blindly support democracy and oppose monarchy. The second reason is of course that the selfish voters don't want to give up their political power. For many people, voting is a way to gain money that they couldn't gain through own labour or exchange with others. Their support for democracy is rooted in greed.
@ImperialRussianGuard Greed is good dude, it's a human feeling.. if it wasn't for it we'd still be living in the jungle, think about this.. It wasn't patriotism, it weren't and AREN'T noble ideals that propelled and propel development forward, but greed and political ambition and personal interest. Even monarchs are susceptible to greed, even a country's highest authorities, and that's a fundamental point in democracy, or do you think they too, don't commit mistakes?
Let me expand a bit more on what I meant, since clearly you misunderstood me. In a democracy the voter basis his vote on what is personally convenient for him. Voting gives him an opportunity to gain money without earning it through personal labour or exchange with others. He will vote for a candidate who promises to take money from a wealthy and unpopular minority and put it in his pocket. Surely you would not argue that is a good thing.
Now to answer you third point. Let us begin with the fact that many Americans chose to fight for the British crown during the American revolution. It estimated that the Loyalists made up somewhere about 40% of the colonist population. Even in the Patriot army there was considerable monarchist presence. Alexander Hamilton was a self proclaimed monarchist. John Adams argued that monarchy and aristocracy were superior to democracy. Many Patriots such as Robert Morris were monarchists.
@ImperialRussianGuard Again, only because monarchy could gather support back in 1776 doesn't mean it is the best way to govern the world as it is TODAY in 2011. Empowering the people is a dangerous process. It could do much good, as we contemplate how the american society has been for centuries flourishing in democracy, but it means that it could also do much harm, as we look back to the french revolution, and the utter terror and destruction the jacobins caused.
But again, only because there were people who took advantage of chaos to seize power, back then in France, doesn't mean the all the revolutionaries were rapacious nor means their ideals were less right. You see, before the revolution they would evaluate how rich a country was by looking at how much they had in the national treasury. It wasn't until the late 18th century that Adam Smith came with "The Wealth of Nations" and theorized that the wealth of a country lies in how much its people have.
@ImperialRussianGuard Again, because this french 18th centuryesque monarchist concept of national wealth is flawed doesn't mean that what you said is wrong, that monarchy is a good form of government because monarchs can look further and adopt politics that aren't entirely popular to the public. But it does have correlation, because in last analysis, for good or for bad, what a country's people desires is that country's will. And will the people claim for a monarch it is democratically right
to have him or her take power, even if it means lifelong power and discretion for this person and the end of elections. The democratic concept transcends the political structures and political babble and comes to integrate a much larger concept that is freedom of choice for an entire country. There are many cases of dictators (not in a pejorative sense) who got elected for life for full discretion and power, like Hugo Chavez in Venezuela.
@ImperialRussianGuard I'm just pointing out that there is a strong correlation between a country's standard of living and the fact that in these countries elections, each four years or so, are held. It isn't wrong your support of monarchy, actually you are exercising the highest form of democratical freedom of expression, which probably wouldn't be possible otherwise (if you lived in a monarchy and claimed for democratization) in most monarchies.
@ImperialRussianGuard Imagine how hard it would be for Pepsi and Coca-Cola to work-out concessions if the US was a monarchy. A lot of corruption would be going on.
@ImperialRussianGuard Because who really wants to be some sort of Robert Mugabe or al-Gaddafi. You're the country's richest fuck but then there's no your children can play with.
@ImperialRussianGuard "If most of us are ashamed of shabby clothes and shoddy furniture, let us be more ashamed of shabby ideas and shoddy philosophies." - Albert Einstein (1879-1955)
@ImperialRussianGuard the monarch has no choice but to oppress them and "put them where they belong". The fact that monarchy by excellence, allows for so little popular insatisfaction, has been the cause of its own downfall. You see, when times get tough, people demand change, and there monarchs fail to answer.
That's why the united states and the uk(which is a parliamentary democracy), also france and germany, were successful democracies, because of their power to adapt to circumstances.
@ImperialRussianGuard Sometimes the people was right, and monarchs oughted to be deposed and sometimes the commoners misjudged the situation and the crisis wasn't their ruler's fault. The fact is, after a country undergoes major change it is very hard, if not impossible, to reverse the situation and get back to status quo ante bellum.
Capitalism also asks for a democratic government. Companies can't have their fate determined by the will of a monarch, they simply do not work that way.
@ImperialRussianGuard There is no such thing as class, it's an invention. There is no nobility.
"Romans, remember that you shall rule the nations by your authority, for this is to be your skill, to make peace the custom, to spare the conquered, and to wage war until the haughty are brought low."
@pedroissler Equality doesn't exist, it was invented by populist charlatans. As Goethe once said " Law givers or revolutionaries who promise equality and liberty at the same time are either utopian dreamers or charlatans."
@ImperialRussianGuard Yeah. Just look at any European country and then look at Africa. Equality is just a dream. Of course Europe only became what it became because of centuries of colonialism.
Oh, but wait. Look at Japan. Japan never had colonies. Japan nearly collapsed after world war 2. Oh, wait, darn. 40k per capita? This must be a mistake, we're searching for inequality here. Oh damn it, there goes Germany right behind Japan. Shit, Berlin was in ruins. Still I think equality is just a dream
@ImperialRussianGuard Now if you want to play the aristocrat and tell me the french revolution didn't do France any good nor did the russian revolution do Russia, be my guest. I'm not going to bite the dust in this one, both the czar and Louis were depraved fucks who didn't deserve any better.
No, I would have the audacity to say that a revolution that murdered thousands of innocent people in Vendee. Indeed how dare I criticize the noble soldiers of liberty who enjoyed throwing children from window unto bayonets. Or the brave men who cut open the stomaches of pregnant women. How could I possibly deny their positive contributions to society. And indeed those monarchs were so cruel in comparison. In fact on average, in Tsarist Russia, 17 people were executed a year ! How inhumane !
Demons of abortion, fornication, destruction, poverty are attacking in full force and nobody is praying for Bulgaria, Romania,l Russia, Grece. If one man in this army would pray, Bulgaria will be much better.
If soldier, say this to protect your contry:
Dear God, please force me and all humanity to salvation, please give me, my country, my Church, my nation, humanity and Creation everything we need,Please defend my country, Eastern orthodox Church, all families from evil for all eternities.
And do you know the millions of people who suffered under the communist tyrants???????????Do you know?Stop talking about communists..its just a propaganda who intend to brainwash people..communism never existed ..it was a well played scene from the jews...jusy search and study for the truth
@GiannisKJ19 no communism is very real, or the Karl Marx version maybe, though his version will never see the light of day, it will never happen. The kind of communism that caused death to millions under Stalin, Zedong, Jhong Il, Castro and Franco was NOT the real communism Karl Marx tried to make, Marx thought of communism to make a perfect utopia world, every type of communism had alterations and not real communsim
Knew you not the suffering the Russian people endured under the Tsar? In a letter to the tsar, Russian farmers said "we'd rather die than starve any longer." What's the first thing Nicholas II did at the start of the first non-communist supported protests? He gunned down the protesters. 10,000 people lost their lives building Novgorod (city built on bones).
@akivran perhaps it was St. Petersburg. It was in my world history book that 10,000 people died Building a city in the Baltic area of Russia. Construction is one of the deadliest occupations in the world, one of the highest fatality rates. I also watched a documentary about the Russian Revolution where they talked about that letter.
@warobsessive Well, I guessed so, though nobody counted,the number was given by contemporary French and German diplomats who detested Peter. Anyway Comminists claimed us millions,they did the things which was absolutely impossible in Russia of the end of XIX centure. When in 1825 5 (only!) rebels - "decabrists" where hanged, Russian people say that it was cruel. When in 1937-1939 Commis shot thousands of inosents - nobody knew, nobody cared. Compare!
The stupid german government of WWI pushed Lenin and his bolsheviks to the power in russia. They were supported by the german military secret service and Lenin was brought back to russia with a german armored train. This happens altough the russian emperor Nikolai II was a cousin of Wilhelm II. And in 1945 the same bolsheviks and their red army came back to the destroyed berlin. Communism is the monster what the germans made theirselve.
@Yakuza7284 correction, Marx made communism and yes he was German but still, communism wasn't made to be a monster, it was made to have the prefect economic system, a utopia if you will, but all the dictators who claimed they were communists just ruined Marx's idea
Переболела Россия красной чумой. Берегите и чтите память!
siberianin 5 days ago
Жаль, что ни одного отклика по-русски.
intercomlawyer 1 week ago
honour to the fallen on the Tsarist side. they fought bravely for what they believed. regardless of whether or not i agree with them i can respect their will.
z0mb1nat3r 1 month ago
So here I am sitting in the U.S. which for all intents and purposes, appears to be quite similar to Russia just before the communist uprising and so it seems many days, with our current leaders, that the U.S. will go the same way down the same slippery slope of lies. I have never heard of the White Army. Where do I go to find published material about them? And why is this site deemed by the Youtube Community as possibly offensive?
MrTopgearguy1 1 month ago
@MrTopgearguy1
probably because of the association with White-Power vs White-Tsarists.
z0mb1nat3r 1 month ago
@z0mb1nat3r Isn't that....knee jerk foolish on their part!!!! How incredibly, politically correct and stupid!
MrTopgearguy1 1 month ago
@MrTopgearguy1
hey man, it really doesn't matter, because if you've got two brain cells to rub together you can see that they mean White-Tsarist Army, and thusly just skip the content warning.
z0mb1nat3r 1 month ago
The last heroes to stand against the slavers.
They should never be forgotten.
Scotish223332 1 month ago
and the painting at 0:23?
limey980 1 month ago
could someone identify the painting at 0:10?
limey980 1 month ago
Why this video is inappropriate? Because they fought against communist Jewish criminals?
AlmightyZEDANIUM 1 month ago
Why do you have to argue about past wars and problems? enjoy the fucking music
vladpros2000 2 months ago
Am I the only person here to listen to cool music and not to make political arguments?
roflatopus 2 months ago
Живём без царя - в голове...
в Кремле - жиды .
23vb7sl 2 months ago
Как же тошнит от этих вчерашних большевиков и их смертельно трепыхающихся отпрысков ! Великая память Белой Армии!!!
Regina3458 2 months ago
пиздецом всё.. тупите дальше
MrSphinx1980 2 months ago
Белую армию финансировала Германия. За чью родину они воевали?
ALXBLK94 2 months ago
LONG LIVE THE FREE RUSSIAN LAND! GLORY TO THE WHITES!
R3furbished 2 months ago 8
Большевики загнали Россию в гроб, Путин и единая Россия забивают крышку гроба.
xyntota 2 months ago
What is the name to this song? It sounds very beautiful.
ThirdReichHistorian 3 months ago
@ThirdReichHistorian The first one
ThirdReichHistorian 3 months ago
@ThirdReichHistorian In English, the song is "God Save the Tsar." Remember your history - we may face the same fate if we don't drive the socialists out NOW.
Runesinger 2 months ago
Ролик хорош,даже сказал отличен,но коммунисты много сделали и хорошего нежели плохого.
KapitanAnonimnost 3 months ago
Слава Сталину
ThePenguinMark 3 months ago
@ThePenguinMark коммунисты - пидерасы опущенные!
Vasia580 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Vasia580 Слава гнидо-царю, слава Российской Империи! Давайте спать в грязи и умирать от голода, ура Романовым!
ThePenguinMark 3 months ago
Белая армия,чёрный барон
Снова готовят нам царский трон,
Но от тайги до британских морей
Красная Армия всех сильней)))))
Maksim605 3 months ago
@Maksim605 красная армия - говно жидовское
Vasia580 3 months ago
@Vasia580 Чьим же говном должна быть белая армия, раз красная ее раскатала, как асфальтоукладчик червяка?
ZooL160990 2 months ago
Heil Russland, Heil Deutschland!
No More Brothers Wars
trevorf14 3 months ago
Thanks Bolsheviks for destroying my Family because of royal blood.
Thanks Bolsheviks for driving my family to USA where we lost everything.
Thanks Bolsheviks for ruining my dreams for becoming Heir.
Thanks Bolsheviks for at least keeping the country stable. xD
5tarry3y3d 4 months ago
Bless all who fight red tyranny !!!
videocanone 4 months ago 6
If I lived in that time I would have sided with the white army. But then there is the chance that they manipulated me into chosing the Red army's side... Yea Im glad I live in this age so I can see through the past more clearly.
GreyKarma4 5 months ago
Whatever the Czar and the whites did, it was so much less than Lenin and Stalin, Yagoda and Beria and the rest of the filth that butchered Europe. If only the Whites had been victorious, where might the world be?
rmjackaman 5 months ago 2
@rmjackaman I can bet the world would be a way better place. and its very likely that in the future germany and russia would have been allies
MHJforPrussia 5 months ago
Poor white soldiers, sent by their explotators to kill their own brothers. I'm glad they lost the war against the proletarians and the revolution. Nowadays reactionary russians are most of them fascists. Russian heart is and always will be red.
Martinenkovy 6 months ago
@Martinenkovy: You are insane. The Bolsheviks were nothing but a small gang of criminals who took money from Russia's enemies in German to sabotage their own gov't. Communists are Quislings. They are all Quislings & will always be Quislings.
VictorLepanto 5 months ago
@Martinenkovy All peoples heart is red. The proletarians and the revolution will win! Workers of all lands, unite!
ZooL160990 2 months ago
@Martinenkovy You damn slaver!
You side with the damn red army! The same damn army who enslaved countless of your own kinsmen as slaves to keep themselves occupied off the fruits of the land like snob warlords with vermin grunts?!
The Russians only gave into hunger, and payed a price of more hunger and chains. Countless lives could have been saved if the russians never gave into a slaver's little red book.
Scotish223332 1 month ago
There is a sad historical possibility of the White Army having another 500,000 soldiers made up of Poles and Finns. If the Russians had announced that all occupied territory would be freed that most likely could have happened. As it was the Poles fought the Red Army in 1920 on their own and beat them. So many "what if's" in history.
helorider1 6 months ago
democracy = us = post ww2 germany = epic win
monarchy = britain = fail
monarchy and fascism= ww1, ww2 = germany = ww1 russia = utter fail
communism = soviet union = fail
pedroissler 7 months ago
@pedroissler I can see that your mathematics is not much better than your history.
ImperialRussianGuard 7 months ago
The communists tried to destroy every culture they touched: Russia, China, Cambodia etc. Thank goodness they were stopped in Spain.
China alone lost 3,000 years of cultural heritage in 3 years of cultural revolution insanity.
Wanderer359 7 months ago
Empire of Russia was much better than Soviet Russia. Im sorry France didnt help you enough to keep le rouge from taking over. God Bless
SpyWizard2 7 months ago
Better DEAD than Red. Anyone who wanted to help Lenin loot fellow human beings was a coward.
My heroes of that area are Wrangel and Kolchak. They were though talented guys who did their best to stop these monsters who wanted to destroy everything what human dignity meant.
But one must also remember that many of the Red Army were cowards. They had to chose who they served. They chose Lenin and Trotsky. Lenin a traitor. Bronstein a ukrainian jew. Some commanders in chief. Same like Bush.
BENNYSIEGEL90 7 months ago
Not to mention important questions such as land redistribution had to be answered first. The tsars understood this and is why they decided to not rush the process. Begining with Paul I, Russian serfs were liberated little by little. So by the time serfdom was abolished, serfs were a minority of the population.This allowed for a smooth transition and allowed for the major questions to be decided.
ImperialRussianGuard 8 months ago
heros, all of them!!!!!! the REDS destroyed everything
tHeWasTeDYouTh 8 months ago
I'm a Russian Baptist. Nobody knows, why it's really happened. But Bible say: that spiritual man understandeth everything. So let me tell you Great Russia has fallen to satanic hordes of reds, because of deep failure of Orthodox Church. They started persecuted Russian Evangelicals for no reason through Pobedonostsev guy. Russian people were leaving orthodox Church in droves, because of spiritual hunger and lack of life in Christ. They wanted Ap. Andrew- type of faith. God punished Russia after.
MrSlavicbaptist 8 months ago
@MrSlavicbaptist christ's an asshole.
pedroissler 8 months ago
@pedroissler You know what they say. "takes one to know one"
TheChorister51 8 months ago
@michaelbyrnes2012 Even more absurd is what you're trying to imply here: only because a guy's rich, he can't support communist. Communism is a fucking good principle dude, don't ever try to demonize it. Communism, education and intelectual progress is everything societies should aim for dude.
pedroissler 8 months ago
@michaelbyrnes2012 I mean this is just too much of a conspiracy theory for anyone to believe in. It's also unpolite to call people by their given name without being asked to do so, even if it's over the internet.
pedroissler 8 months ago
@michaelbyrnes2012 Because I hate to see a perfectly acceptable principle, like the creation of better opportunities for poor people becoming a pretext for this political circus in which people insult my intelligence trying to convince me of things like the "Jewish bankers wanted to control Russia that's why they've finnanced the Revolution, communism is just a set of lies fabricated to further oppress the people."
pedroissler 8 months ago
@michaelbyrnes2012 What difference does it make where the money comes from? Didn't they make the revolution, didn't everyone live happily ever after? I don't see where you are trying to get. If Trotsky needed money for the revolution he would get it from whoever would it give it to him, right? The main source of hatred at the time wasn't even capitalism itself, it was more directed towards the czar and his political friends. Were you just trying to further discredit the revolution and communism?
pedroissler 8 months ago
@pedroissler Lived happily ever after ? Sorry to burst your bubble but that has nothing to do with reality. Perhaps you've never heard of the red terror ? Or the prision camps in Siberia ? Or how priests were tortured and killed ? In other words it was no picnic in the workers paradise. And anyone who glorifies it can only be described as delusional and naive. Communism is another degenerate product of the French revolution.
ImperialRussianGuard 8 months ago
@ImperialRussianGuard Again, where are you trying to get?
pedroissler 8 months ago
@ImperialRussianGuard Look man.. if a guy uses the name of Jesus Christ, for example, to justify the murder of someone it doesn't make him innocent and doesn't make Jesus Christ more guilty. The same applies to communism and every other intellectual theory despots have used over the centuries to commit atrocities.
pedroissler 8 months ago
@pedroissler Even Communism as a theory is repulsive. Just look at its founders, Marx and Engels. Are you aware that Engels called for the anaihilation of the Russian people. Or that Marx thought of Slavs as inferior. Both of them were deranged men, who wanted to murder people simply because of their class.
ImperialRussianGuard 8 months ago
@ImperialRussianGuard A revolution is not a dinner party.
pedroissler 8 months ago
@pedroissler So that is supposed to justify killing innocent women and children ?
ImperialRussianGuard 8 months ago
@ImperialRussianGuard Yeah, to educate the people so they will improve their own lives. Hmph, what a crazed loonie am I. Tell me what you've been smoking because I want some.
pedroissler 8 months ago
@pedroissler Yes, you show clear signs of insanity. I am glad that at the very least you admit your own mental instabilities. Especially since you are arguing that they best way to educate people is to kill innocent people. I'm afraid I cannot give you good advice on your narcotic cravings, since clearly your knowledge of narcotics clearly exceed mine. After all one could only spout such nonsense with the assistance of narcotics.
ImperialRussianGuard 8 months ago
@ImperialRussianGuard You were just looking for yet another reason to bash communism, sorry to have cut your high.
pedroissler 8 months ago
@pedroissler I have more than enough already. It would be a bit selfish of me I tried to get anymore.
ImperialRussianGuard 8 months ago
@ImperialRussianGuard Wait. Are you a critic of the french rev. ?
pedroissler 8 months ago
@pedroissler Yes, the French revolution was one of the most barbaric things in the history of humanity. I can't understand why anyone would support it.
ImperialRussianGuard 8 months ago
@ImperialRussianGuard Omg. The most barbaric thing IMHO would be a country having it's queen say to her own people that awful phrase. That phrase summed it all up, became a slogan, that pretty much justified the whole thing to me.. You know, I would be extremely disgruntled too, would someone ever treat me that way.
pedroissler 8 months ago
Are you reffering to the claim that Marie-Antoinette said " let them eat cake".You do realize that has been exposed as urban legend? She never said such a thing. In fact such a statement would be contradictory to her personality. Both she and Louis XVI had a genuine want to improve the lifes of their poor subjects. Marie-Antoinette often invited children from poor families to play with her own. She was Patroness of the Maison Philanthropique,a society which helped the aged, the blind, and widows
ImperialRussianGuard 8 months ago
@ImperialRussianGuard Again, I don't like communism either, but social equality is not a dream.
pedroissler 8 months ago
@pedroissler Humans by nature are unequal. We strive to achieve excellence, thus we wish to place ourselves above others. A an artist does not wish to be considered equal to other artists. He wishes to be praised and to be considered superior than other artists. That is why artists such as Leonardo da Vinci have achieved imortality, while some of their less counterparts have become forgotten. One can only achieve equality with the abolition of merit and virtue.
ImperialRussianGuard 8 months ago
@ImperialRussianGuard The whole problem are private schools. The whole system works I mean, I have studied all my life at private schools but the whole problem is when people start thinking they are the most exclusive thing that's ever been, for some cosmic reason. I tend to judge people based solely on merit like you said, but I have friends that clearly abuse of their social position for personal gain, and that's not nice for a country dude.
pedroissler 8 months ago
@ImperialRussianGuard About Da Vinci well, he had all the reasons to feel different, but that's probably because he really was. Forcible wealth distribution kills innovation but so does the other end of the spectrum. No one wants to live in some sort of 21st century feudalism where there is little or no state presence and the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Societies should aim for education and social mobility more than they do for their momentaneous output.
pedroissler 8 months ago
@ImperialRussianGuard Societies, in general, should think more about the long run. The first question people with real social power ask typically ask is "How can I benefit from this?". Instead, they should ask themselves "How will this benefit society in the long run".
Because in benefiting society, in the long run people will benefit more than if they only thought about how they could get richer or attain more prestige and power.
pedroissler 8 months ago
@pedroissler Perhaps the only leaders who ask the question "How will this benefit society in the long run ?" are monarchs. Only monarchs are willing to take unpopular steps for the good of the nation. As Tsar Paul I once said " I prefer to be hated for a rightful cause than loved for a wrong one." Paul I practiced what he preached. He was the first Tsar to began improving the life for Serfs. He also fought against corruption and lawlessness in the government. He made many enemies and was killed.
ImperialRussianGuard 8 months ago
@ImperialRussianGuard yeah, and he was a tsar. nuff said son
pedroissler 8 months ago
@pedroissler @pedroissler Is is it really that difficult to write "enough" ? I don't see how the fact that he was the Tsar of Russia somehow debunks anything. Enlighten me with your infinite wisdom.
ImperialRussianGuard 8 months ago
@ImperialRussianGuard I'm a republican to the bone, if you excuse me.
pedroissler 8 months ago
@pedroissler While I have sympathy for your unfortunate medical condition, you have yet to debunk my point. Since you claim that I am wrong about Paul I, then show me where I am wrong.
ImperialRussianGuard 8 months ago
@ImperialRussianGuard You see. It's not that he was wrong, or any other tsar then, that the people didn't like him (and I'm not even sure about Paul I, but about Nicholas the 2nd I am).
The reason why monarchy has been despised in many parts of the world is because it is, a tyrannical form of rule.
You see, I'm not trying to say that monarchy is naturally a poor form of government. There were largely successful ones. The problem is when times get tough and they, the people, demand new leaders
pedroissler 8 months ago
@pedroissler Actually most of the Russian tsars were very popular, including Nicholas II. For example at a public celebration in honor of the 200th anniversary of the Battle of Poltova, many observers noted the great enthusiasm that the crowds greeted the tsar with. A monarchy cannot be a tyranny be definition. The Greek tyrannos is one who seizes power through illegal means. In Ancient Greece, tyrants rose to power through populist coups against the local aristocracy.
ImperialRussianGuard 8 months ago
@ImperialRussianGuard It's not that monarchs are essentially bad rulers you see, but, if ever they allowed political opposition to gain strength they would risk losing it all when times got tougher and the people demanded for change. Not so much because they are unfit to rule but, because of the opposition's own tend to wish and remain in power after the crisis' solved. They wouldn't be allowed to return, the blame would fall on them, as it has happened throughout history.
pedroissler 8 months ago
@pedroissler While we could dwell on the fact that in fact monarchs did allow political opposition, I find the claim that monarchs are incapable of making changes. This simply not true. In fact I would argue monachs are able to cause political changes more effectivley and smoothly due to the long term thinking present in monarchies. The emancipation of serfs in Russias is a great example. If the serfs had been emancipated right away, the Russian economy would have collapsed.
ImperialRussianGuard 8 months ago
@ImperialRussianGuard So why is it that developed countries are democracies, not monarchies? Why is it that GB has a prime minister, as does Spain? Certainly not because their monarchs were all the more capable.
pedroissler 7 months ago
@pedroissler I apologize that I did not respond earlier. For some reason I could access this video for a considerable amount of time. However now to answer your question.
ImperialRussianGuard 7 months ago
@pedroissler I would contest this concept of a "developed" nation. However that is for a different discussion. The reason why most of the leading nations are democracies is because due the political crisis generated by the first and second world war, many of the leading European monarchies such as Austria, Germany, Russia,etc were destroyed. However if we are to look at statistics prior to WW1, we will see that monarchies were ahead of democracies in many fields.
ImperialRussianGuard 7 months ago
For example: Between 1898 and 1913 the three fastest growing economies were Russia, Austria-Hungary, and Germany in that order. It is interesting to note that Austria-Hungary beat larger colonial empires such as France and Britain even though they did not even have a third of their resources. And this pattern was not only in Europe. In South America, the Brazilian empire was far more prosperous than it it's democratic neighbors.
ImperialRussianGuard 7 months ago
@ImperialRussianGuard The brazillian empire wasn't exactly what you can call prosperous, and I'm saying this because I live in Brazil. Our monarch used to hinder growth applying large taxes, every business here had to pass a kind of imperial council to get approved, and it would require connections and favours for the king's circle. A nice movie is "MAUÁ, The Emperor and The King", it shows the life of a brazillian businessmen who had his assets seized because he got too rich building railroads
pedroissler 7 months ago
@ImperialRussianGuard Also the central powers led themselves into war, the entente hadn't much of a choice. Bismarck himself predicted that imperial ambitions in europe would end up leading to an all-out european war, in his famous remark: "One day the great European War will come out of some damned foolish thing in the Balkans." He said it weeks before leaving his post as chancellor. The problem is the napoleonic dream monarchs feed, that they will be their country's saviour/redeemer, plain BS.
pedroissler 7 months ago
Monarchies over the centuries failed because while they were undoubtly able to gather support, specially with the army and businessmen they usually benefited, democracies could still raise armies just as good (see the US army for more info), allow for better economic development because they weren't economically exclusive, to sum it up, were able to gather much more political support. That's why every monarchy fell in Europe, because after a certain point they would simply stop working.
pedroissler 7 months ago
@pedroissler Nonsense ! The Napoleonic wars are a testament of this claims falsity. The Tyrolean rebellion is a good example. The peasants of Tyrol revolted against Bonaparte and his hordes under the slogan "For God, Emperor and Fatherland" ! In Spain, monarchist partisans fought like lions against the French occupiers ! What about the Russian peasants who mercilessly harassed the retreating French army. What about the martyrs of Vendee ?
ImperialRussianGuard 7 months ago
@ImperialRussianGuard I never said monarchs were utter imbeciles, but that democracies have delivered better over the 20th century.. Bhutan has a king, look at how Bhutan is today..
pedroissler 7 months ago
@pedroissler For a small country Bhutan has some very impressive accomplishments. In 2007 they were the second fastest growing economy in the world. Their annual growth rate is about 22.5%. They have a unemployment rate of less than 4 %. For a small country with limited natural resources their economic development can only be admired. Besides they are the only country in the world that measure the Gross National Happiness. I wouldn't mind living in Bhutan.
ImperialRussianGuard 7 months ago
@ImperialRussianGuard Now you really want to know why every russian government has been failing since the crimean war on a regular basis? It is because Russia is one hell of a corrupt country. Education in Russia is great, the Russian army is great, Russia has a lot of natural resources, but you have bloody power hungry leaders who don't give a shoot about the fate of their own people too concerned about war and sputnik. A little less elitism and nationalistic pride couldn't possibly harm...
pedroissler 7 months ago
@pedroissler Actually up until 1917, Russia didn't have a problem with it's leaders. It was when the monarchy was abolished that all of it's problems began. It was only with the introduction of democracy to Russia, that corruption became rampant on such a large scale. Even in the Soviet Union it was not as much of a problem as it was during the Yeltsin years. Under a tsar like Paul I, this would be inconceivable. What is wrong with elitism and patriotism ? They are both very noble ideals.
ImperialRussianGuard 7 months ago
@ImperialRussianGuard Dude the tsar would prefer to use a scorched earth policy and burn half of the russian countryside to hold-off Napoleon than handle over the power. Napoleon found Moscow in flames as he sate in the Kremlin.. talk about corruption.. That's the elitism I'm talking about, the elites governing for themselves and not for the common folk.. Patriotism is a whole different story..
pedroissler 7 months ago
@pedroissler Actually the tsar did not order for Moscow to be burned. It was Count Rostopchin who gave the orders under pressure from the people of Moscow who refused to be under French control. After all Bonaparte's army was not known for it's chivalry. Had Moscow not been burned down, it is very likely that the Muscovites would have suffered a fate similar to that of many unfortunate Spaniards. But what does this have to do with elitism and corruption ?
ImperialRussianGuard 7 months ago
@ImperialRussianGuard and if monarchy is so good why aren't the people in Egypt Lyibia Syria Tunis uprising to have their monarchs back instead of wanting democracy
why don't the spanish and british people claim for absolutist power?
why hasn't the united states burned its constitution and adopted monarchy?
the best thing with democracy is that you can neatly replace your leader if he doesn't work
with monarchies you have to guillotine the dude because he just won't go
pedroissler 7 months ago
@pedroissler I will not dwell on the growing monarchist sentiments in those countries, rather I would point out that these people are not advocating western style democracy. In Egypt, Islamist groups have the most political support. While the Libyan rebels are completely divided by tribal and political factions. The Arab spring, over which journalists have been gushing about for the past few months, are not going to make way for western style democracy. It probably be closer to Palestinian style
ImperialRussianGuard 7 months ago
@ImperialRussianGuard As for saying that children are brainwashed in school to support democracy and oppose monarchy that's completely right and takes some legitimacy away from the democratic cause, as people should always be made to see history from more than one perspective, even if it means letting go of their certainties. Now even though brainwashing isn't the best way to teach our children, it doesn't at all mean that because of that democracy has more or less legitimacy... That's a fallacy
pedroissler 7 months ago
@pedroissler You argued that the fact that people are not advocating for absolute monarchy is evidence that it is inferior. This is of course logically flawed because you are essentially saying that something can be determined as good or bad by its popularity . Using that logic one could argue that is justifiable to kill people in blue sweaters if blue sweaters are unpopular. So I pointed out their disdain for monarchy is not rooted in intellectual reasons, but rather childhood brainwashing.
ImperialRussianGuard 7 months ago
@ImperialRussianGuard I'm not saying that because something is popular it is necessarily right, and there's a big difference there and you pointed out right, but the democratic process involves allowing countries to make their own mistakes and figure it out for themselves, you see? Autodetermination it is called. If you wanted a country to succeed, you could just make everyone work 17 hours a day nonstop and push the children really hard in school, it would work out, certainly would
pedroissler 7 months ago
@pedroissler It is simply irrational to make large scale decisions based on the will of the majority. One must remember that a majority of people have a very limited knowledge of political matters. How can you expect a group of people who know nothing about foreign policy to be able decide on a successful foreign policy ? They can't, all it does is it continues to make a bigger and bigger mess of the countries political situation.
ImperialRussianGuard 7 months ago
@ImperialRussianGuard In western democracies the majority chooses their leaders, what their leaders will do is a whole different matter.. The world is deeply elitist, even if we won't like to admit it, and there will always be individuals who will stand out, even in socialism. People were born equal, but it was the last time that they were so, you never heard this? The good thing about democracy isn't the choice per se, but political renewal that just won't happen otherwise.
pedroissler 7 months ago
@pedroissler Without a strong elite, a state cannot survive. Never in the history has there been a successful state governed by the principles of egalitarianism. It is interesting to note that all the successful democracies in history were limited ones with a strong aristocratic and merchant class elite. The Republic of Venice is an excellent example. That is why democracy will remain but an ideal. Can you give me an example of one successful state that did not have some form of elite ?
ImperialRussianGuard 7 months ago
But the catch is: do these people want to work 17 hours a day nonstop, do these people really want all this? We hope so, but they'll have to choose. The good thing about democracy is that one can choose. You can choose to work hard or not, you can choose to have your opinions OR NOT (you can choose to have no opinions), you can choose to have children or not, to serve the army or not, hell you can choose whether you will vote or not, to have a tv or not, to work or not. But hell, you can choose.
pedroissler 7 months ago
Freedom of choice in democracy is completely based on the will of the majority. If 51% of the population want to, they can impose their will on the other 49%. So if the majority wish to restrict the freedom of choice of the minority, in a democracy they can do that. For example in the Netherlands and many other Western democracies you are not allowed to read certain unpopular political literature. The majority of the population is restricting the freedom of others to read certain literature.
ImperialRussianGuard 7 months ago
@ImperialRussianGuard Dude it doesn't work like that, if 51% of the US would want to detonate all the bombs and start once and for all MAD it wouldn't happen. Democracies rely on checks and balances, sophisticated political mechanisms that will correct these flaws. The other neat thing is that 51% of the US population simply wouldn't choose out of the blue to start MAD, while in a monarchy if you caught your king in a bad mood he might as well press that red button and end of story lol
pedroissler 7 months ago
@pedroissler Only when democracy is limited, there can be some form of checks and balances. Democracy in it's purist form has no checks or balances but is full out mob absolutism. Even in a limited democracy it is very difficult to preserve law and order. If the the majority of the citizens wanted a nuclear war, then even in a limited democracy they could accomplish that. They would elect representatives that promised to start it, and once the congress and senate pass it, the bombs start falling
ImperialRussianGuard 7 months ago
@ImperialRussianGuard yeah that's pretty much it, but as i said before, it just won't happen so we're good
pedroissler 7 months ago
@ImperialRussianGuard even me, with all the education I have, all the preparation, constant training, and I still make silly mistakes once in a while,
just imagine a stupid monarch who has been taught from childhood HE is the best form of government
no one plays devil's advocate for a monarch, no one ever criticizes him
no one puts him in the rough, no unecessarily blunt and harsh truths, even brutal truths with him
no "you're an ass I'm better than you" with him
this sucks, he's prone to fail
pedroissler 7 months ago
@pedroissler You have obviously never read about a monarchs education. For example Russian tsars were frequently verbally abused by their teachers if their grades slipped or if they misbehaved. They were even sometimes beaten for bad behavior. They were forced to sleep on hard beds in cold and uncomfortable conditions. They were given food that only the poorest would eat. So your argument that monarchs are somehow sheltered from harsh reality doesn't stand up the historical reality of things.
ImperialRussianGuard 7 months ago
@ImperialRussianGuard monarchies aren't anything like you said dude, they're just plain tyrannies in the end, which agrees to the universally accepted truth that we shouldn't even think about NOT BRAINWASHING our kids to believe this, it's simply true in the end and thus not brainwashing
that monarchies suck and that 2+2=4 teachers shouldn't really bother to prove
dumb and lazy kids will fail, be them monarchs or not, and i'm not giving my seat to any arrogant monarch
end of story
pedroissler 7 months ago
If it is supposedly so obvious that democracy is superior to monarchy, then why did most of the great thinkers of history think other wise? Why did prominent psychologists such as Gustav Le Bon prefer monarchy to democracy ? Why did great philosophers like Plato and Thomas Hobbes mock democracy yet revere monarchy ? Why did prolific writers such as Feodor Dosteyevsky and Anatole France think so highly of monarchy but have a very low opinion of democracy ?
ImperialRussianGuard 7 months ago
@ImperialRussianGuard The major reason for the low opinion of Democracy is that Democracies are very suceptible to being taken over by the greedy, lazy mob of people who want something for nothing.
helorider1 6 months ago
@helorider1 I am glad to know that you agree with me.
ImperialRussianGuard 6 months ago
@ImperialRussianGuard Monarchy is a system that can be great for having a leaders, but it becomes unstable with corruption if a bad seed takes control.
Many great thinkers may have had low opinion of elections and mob choice since many people were forced to believe in rulers and had high opinions of kings when they won wars and brought back glory for their nation.
Everything is flawed in it's own way, but monarchy is a legit system if bad apples were kept in check.
Scotish223332 1 month ago
Alas monarchy does not work in the same way as democracy. Monarchs are taught from childhood to have a good self control and to analyze decisions logically. A monarchy is taught from childhood that it is a bad idea to make political decisions based of emotional sensations. So even if he was in a "bad mood" he would be able to restrain himself from making unwise decisions based on his mood. A monarch is not only taught the skills necessary to rule but also he is prepared psychologically.
ImperialRussianGuard 7 months ago
@ImperialRussianGuard To sum it all up, capitalism and democracy are the worst systems in the world, except for all others. In the end, they're all we have. Life is so much different from the theory, so many democracies that will turn into tyrannies, even many tyrannies that resemble democracies. The catch is that you have to be aware of everything all the time, because sometimes what is promised isn't what is delivered, indeed, most of the time.
pedroissler 7 months ago
To answer your second point. There are two reasons. The first being is that government funded schools are required to promote democracy in the classroom. Children are conditioned to blindly support democracy and oppose monarchy. The second reason is of course that the selfish voters don't want to give up their political power. For many people, voting is a way to gain money that they couldn't gain through own labour or exchange with others. Their support for democracy is rooted in greed.
ImperialRussianGuard 7 months ago
@ImperialRussianGuard Greed is good dude, it's a human feeling.. if it wasn't for it we'd still be living in the jungle, think about this.. It wasn't patriotism, it weren't and AREN'T noble ideals that propelled and propel development forward, but greed and political ambition and personal interest. Even monarchs are susceptible to greed, even a country's highest authorities, and that's a fundamental point in democracy, or do you think they too, don't commit mistakes?
pedroissler 7 months ago
Let me expand a bit more on what I meant, since clearly you misunderstood me. In a democracy the voter basis his vote on what is personally convenient for him. Voting gives him an opportunity to gain money without earning it through personal labour or exchange with others. He will vote for a candidate who promises to take money from a wealthy and unpopular minority and put it in his pocket. Surely you would not argue that is a good thing.
ImperialRussianGuard 7 months ago
Now to answer you third point. Let us begin with the fact that many Americans chose to fight for the British crown during the American revolution. It estimated that the Loyalists made up somewhere about 40% of the colonist population. Even in the Patriot army there was considerable monarchist presence. Alexander Hamilton was a self proclaimed monarchist. John Adams argued that monarchy and aristocracy were superior to democracy. Many Patriots such as Robert Morris were monarchists.
ImperialRussianGuard 7 months ago
@ImperialRussianGuard Again, only because monarchy could gather support back in 1776 doesn't mean it is the best way to govern the world as it is TODAY in 2011. Empowering the people is a dangerous process. It could do much good, as we contemplate how the american society has been for centuries flourishing in democracy, but it means that it could also do much harm, as we look back to the french revolution, and the utter terror and destruction the jacobins caused.
pedroissler 7 months ago
But again, only because there were people who took advantage of chaos to seize power, back then in France, doesn't mean the all the revolutionaries were rapacious nor means their ideals were less right. You see, before the revolution they would evaluate how rich a country was by looking at how much they had in the national treasury. It wasn't until the late 18th century that Adam Smith came with "The Wealth of Nations" and theorized that the wealth of a country lies in how much its people have.
pedroissler 7 months ago
@ImperialRussianGuard Again, because this french 18th centuryesque monarchist concept of national wealth is flawed doesn't mean that what you said is wrong, that monarchy is a good form of government because monarchs can look further and adopt politics that aren't entirely popular to the public. But it does have correlation, because in last analysis, for good or for bad, what a country's people desires is that country's will. And will the people claim for a monarch it is democratically right
pedroissler 7 months ago
to have him or her take power, even if it means lifelong power and discretion for this person and the end of elections. The democratic concept transcends the political structures and political babble and comes to integrate a much larger concept that is freedom of choice for an entire country. There are many cases of dictators (not in a pejorative sense) who got elected for life for full discretion and power, like Hugo Chavez in Venezuela.
pedroissler 7 months ago
@ImperialRussianGuard I'm just pointing out that there is a strong correlation between a country's standard of living and the fact that in these countries elections, each four years or so, are held. It isn't wrong your support of monarchy, actually you are exercising the highest form of democratical freedom of expression, which probably wouldn't be possible otherwise (if you lived in a monarchy and claimed for democratization) in most monarchies.
pedroissler 7 months ago
@ImperialRussianGuard Imagine how hard it would be for Pepsi and Coca-Cola to work-out concessions if the US was a monarchy. A lot of corruption would be going on.
pedroissler 8 months ago
@ImperialRussianGuard More than there is already.
pedroissler 8 months ago
@ImperialRussianGuard It's like loving your kids but caring for your neighbour's ones also, instead of simply not giving a fuck.
pedroissler 8 months ago
@ImperialRussianGuard Because who really wants to be some sort of Robert Mugabe or al-Gaddafi. You're the country's richest fuck but then there's no your children can play with.
pedroissler 8 months ago
@ImperialRussianGuard You're the country's richest fuck but then there's no one for your children to play with.
pedroissler 8 months ago
@ImperialRussianGuard "A few vices are sufficient to darken many virtues." - Plutarch (c. 46 – 120 AD)
pedroissler 8 months ago
@ImperialRussianGuard "If most of us are ashamed of shabby clothes and shoddy furniture, let us be more ashamed of shabby ideas and shoddy philosophies." - Albert Einstein (1879-1955)
pedroissler 8 months ago
@ImperialRussianGuard the monarch has no choice but to oppress them and "put them where they belong". The fact that monarchy by excellence, allows for so little popular insatisfaction, has been the cause of its own downfall. You see, when times get tough, people demand change, and there monarchs fail to answer.
That's why the united states and the uk(which is a parliamentary democracy), also france and germany, were successful democracies, because of their power to adapt to circumstances.
pedroissler 8 months ago
@ImperialRussianGuard Sometimes the people was right, and monarchs oughted to be deposed and sometimes the commoners misjudged the situation and the crisis wasn't their ruler's fault. The fact is, after a country undergoes major change it is very hard, if not impossible, to reverse the situation and get back to status quo ante bellum.
Capitalism also asks for a democratic government. Companies can't have their fate determined by the will of a monarch, they simply do not work that way.
pedroissler 8 months ago
@ImperialRussianGuard There is no such thing as class, it's an invention. There is no nobility.
"Romans, remember that you shall rule the nations by your authority, for this is to be your skill, to make peace the custom, to spare the conquered, and to wage war until the haughty are brought low."
pedroissler 8 months ago
@pedroissler Equality doesn't exist, it was invented by populist charlatans. As Goethe once said " Law givers or revolutionaries who promise equality and liberty at the same time are either utopian dreamers or charlatans."
ImperialRussianGuard 8 months ago
@ImperialRussianGuard Yeah. Just look at any European country and then look at Africa. Equality is just a dream. Of course Europe only became what it became because of centuries of colonialism.
Oh, but wait. Look at Japan. Japan never had colonies. Japan nearly collapsed after world war 2. Oh, wait, darn. 40k per capita? This must be a mistake, we're searching for inequality here. Oh damn it, there goes Germany right behind Japan. Shit, Berlin was in ruins. Still I think equality is just a dream
pedroissler 8 months ago
@ImperialRussianGuard Now if you want to play the aristocrat and tell me the french revolution didn't do France any good nor did the russian revolution do Russia, be my guest. I'm not going to bite the dust in this one, both the czar and Louis were depraved fucks who didn't deserve any better.
pedroissler 8 months ago
No, I would have the audacity to say that a revolution that murdered thousands of innocent people in Vendee. Indeed how dare I criticize the noble soldiers of liberty who enjoyed throwing children from window unto bayonets. Or the brave men who cut open the stomaches of pregnant women. How could I possibly deny their positive contributions to society. And indeed those monarchs were so cruel in comparison. In fact on average, in Tsarist Russia, 17 people were executed a year ! How inhumane !
ImperialRussianGuard 8 months ago
@michaelbyrnes2012 Your argument implies 20 million dollars would`ve bought the russian state back then.
pedroissler 8 months ago
@michaelbyrnes2012 What difference does it make?
pedroissler 8 months ago
Leo Trotski and bolshevics are fucking jews White Army true russian men
Storn1920 8 months ago
General Wrangell resting place is in my Belgrade.
That wos his last wish!
SLAVA MU
TRYON333 8 months ago
The White army should have won, Damn those Red scum basterds..
SvitjodsWarrior 9 months ago
Demons of abortion, fornication, destruction, poverty are attacking in full force and nobody is praying for Bulgaria, Romania,l Russia, Grece. If one man in this army would pray, Bulgaria will be much better.
If soldier, say this to protect your contry:
Dear God, please force me and all humanity to salvation, please give me, my country, my Church, my nation, humanity and Creation everything we need,Please defend my country, Eastern orthodox Church, all families from evil for all eternities.
IoanIlieMinaGheorghe 9 months ago 6
@michaelbyrnes2012
This just goes to show that communism never works.
Vovk3 9 months ago
" Memory Eternal " to all who fought against the Godless communists.
Ettoredipugnar 9 months ago
@michaelbyrnes2012 U MAD?
abortionasiaCOCKROCK 10 months ago
the white army god fucking pwned.
abortionasiaCOCKROCK 10 months ago
Yes communism is a terrible system because of all those who died under it *ignores the millions who suffered and died under the tsars*
MortifiedPenguin7 10 months ago
@MortifiedPenguin7 Millions died and suffered under the Tsars ? Provide evidence to back up your claims.
ImperialRussianGuard 9 months ago
white forses wasnt czarist. stop spreading this misconception!
trupoed11 10 months ago
@trupoed11
Uh, no.
Vovk3 9 months ago
And do you know the millions of people who suffered under the communist tyrants???????????Do you know?Stop talking about communists..its just a propaganda who intend to brainwash people..communism never existed ..it was a well played scene from the jews...jusy search and study for the truth
GiannisKJ19 10 months ago
@GiannisKJ19 no communism is very real, or the Karl Marx version maybe, though his version will never see the light of day, it will never happen. The kind of communism that caused death to millions under Stalin, Zedong, Jhong Il, Castro and Franco was NOT the real communism Karl Marx tried to make, Marx thought of communism to make a perfect utopia world, every type of communism had alterations and not real communsim
savage642 10 months ago
Knew you not the suffering the Russian people endured under the Tsar? In a letter to the tsar, Russian farmers said "we'd rather die than starve any longer." What's the first thing Nicholas II did at the start of the first non-communist supported protests? He gunned down the protesters. 10,000 people lost their lives building Novgorod (city built on bones).
warobsessive 10 months ago
@warobsessive Novgorod has been built around IV century, are you sure about 10.000 and tsars?))
akivran 8 months ago
@akivran perhaps it was St. Petersburg. It was in my world history book that 10,000 people died Building a city in the Baltic area of Russia. Construction is one of the deadliest occupations in the world, one of the highest fatality rates. I also watched a documentary about the Russian Revolution where they talked about that letter.
warobsessive 8 months ago
@warobsessive Well, I guessed so, though nobody counted,the number was given by contemporary French and German diplomats who detested Peter. Anyway Comminists claimed us millions,they did the things which was absolutely impossible in Russia of the end of XIX centure. When in 1825 5 (only!) rebels - "decabrists" where hanged, Russian people say that it was cruel. When in 1937-1939 Commis shot thousands of inosents - nobody knew, nobody cared. Compare!
akivran 8 months ago
The stupid german government of WWI pushed Lenin and his bolsheviks to the power in russia. They were supported by the german military secret service and Lenin was brought back to russia with a german armored train. This happens altough the russian emperor Nikolai II was a cousin of Wilhelm II. And in 1945 the same bolsheviks and their red army came back to the destroyed berlin. Communism is the monster what the germans made theirselve.
Yakuza7284 10 months ago
@Yakuza7284 correction, Marx made communism and yes he was German but still, communism wasn't made to be a monster, it was made to have the prefect economic system, a utopia if you will, but all the dictators who claimed they were communists just ruined Marx's idea
savage642 10 months ago